Hacker News Reader

Comment by CodeWriter23 | Hacker News Reader

This article has a really bad "smell test" problem for me. Mostly because the author chose to actually point out that Lyft were the original perpetrators of the illegal Rideshare ride, then swiftly shifts focus back to why Uber is the company that needs to be crucified for this sin, and has not one gram of ire for Lyft. I mean it seems a bit of a bias against Uber to me. And I'm no fan of Uber.

And let's be real, the underlying whine of this author is Lyft and Uber broke the status quo by bypassing the traditional way corporations get laws made - lobbyists, bribes framed as campaign contributions, and favors. Instead Uber put politicians in the position of having to pay for not passing legislation Uber wanted.

View on HN

I chose to read this author as someone who very much believes in the black-and-white lines of the letter of the law. He's an interesting guy, for better or for worse. On the one hand, he's the guy who is willing to put his own name on the line to take on Facebook and Google (while consulting for Microsoft) on privacy as well as search result neutrality:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-12241395

But he's also the same person who used his knowledge and position to bully small business owners. If he's done it once, he's probably done it more than once:

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/13/370347429/outrage-over-chinese...

Do we apply this logic of "it was rooted in illegality, it can never be legal" to undocumented immigrants?

This comment smells like all-or-nothing thinking to me. The article may have a flaw of unspecificity which I think has resulted in bumping readers off of the writer's path of thinking, instead.

The article is educational, illustrating a short-term financially successful, legally questionable approach to disruption, pitting evolving norms against regulatory laws.

"Whining" is mere rhetoric, I assume from the commenter's perspective, since I cannot find that tone present in the article.

Instead, a flaw I think the article has is overlooking pointedly justifying why regulatory laws are necessary. It describes normalizing lawbreaking, and implies Uber is establishing a cracked foundation for its new industry. But the article didn't say that's bad.

Still, the article is valid in spite of it focusing on Uber: Uber pivoted after seeing and complaining about Lyft gaining an advantage. Unfortunately, why this is bad is undercapitalized by the article.

The headline implies that the Lyft/Uber approach is bad.

Yeah the article could be much more strongly worded overall IMO.

Yeah the article could be much more strongly worded, even though it has a lot going for it.

The issue is not just that Uber AND lyft business model broke the law.

The author is pointing out that the business culture at Uber was designed and intended to break the law, and this is evidenced by a large list of illegal actions.

To be explicit – Uber’s board, chose to pursue actions which were clearly illegal, not actions which were “morally dubious”. More over, their legal counsel worked to aid them in this endeavor.

This leaves behind a firm geared towards condoning and considering illegal activity – an issue which is not matched by Lyft.

This is the critical difference. Its also why I have long recommended that people stay away from Uber.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com